Please decommsion the big maps.

[save]

My first boardgame was Chancellorsville, made by Avalon Hill

Wooden Ships & iron men here!

And for air combat:
Air Force
Luftwaffe (sucked tho)
Over the Reich and Achtung Spitfire!
Air Superiority and Air Strike

[Ack-Ack]

My personal preference would be to have 2 sides and smaller maps to encourage / force contact with the enemy forces.

A two country war wouldn't work, which is why we don't have it in AH.

[FESS67]

A two country war wouldn't work, which is why we don't have it in AH.

It works well in a great deal of other games, why wouldn't it work here?

[Tumor]

It works well in a great deal of other games, why wouldn't it work here?

Maybe because HTC might end up having to choose which side a player took per login?

[Randall172]

Maybe because HTC might end up having to choose which side a player took per login?

big deal

[Oddball-CAF]

It works well in a great deal of other games, why wouldn't it work here?

  I'll take a wild guess here and say this would, like the old "split arenas" kill off even
more of the existing squadrons.

[715]

Maybe because HTC might end up having to choose which side a player took per login?

Why?  If the player login is random then statistics say that the imbalance would actually be smaller with two sides than when the same number of players are spread over three sides, thereby making fewer per side.

[428CJ]

  Really, really, don't like small maps.

  When ndisles is up I just GV on tank Island.

  Doing away with Large maps would be a mistake.

  My 2 cents.

[Tumor]

Why?  If the player login is random then statistics say that the imbalance would actually be smaller with two sides than when the same number of players are spread over three sides, thereby making fewer per side.

 There would be hordes.  Lots and lots of hordes.  THEN, along would come the Axis vs Allied crowd... and it's all downhill from there.

[Ack-Ack]

It works well in a great deal of other games, why wouldn't it work here?

Two sides rarely work in a MA setting because most players will gravitate to the side with the most numbers. 

[bustr]

Being this is a spitball post, can any of you gents who like small maps go into your favorite art program. Then rough out say a 512x512 layout of what you believe would bring players together versus allowing them to avoid each other? Lay down blue as the background then paint some tan or brown for land. You don't need to make icons, just use text like LAB, MAB, SAB, GV, PRT and so forth to indicate fields. We all can use our imagination that your fields are about 1 sector apart.

Then imbed it back in this post while explaining why it works for you in your experience with the game. Also allow others to download it and make modifications to diagram their counter argument to your choices.

The AH3 terrain editor is easy to use and Easycor and Greebo have written an excellent manual per Waffle's request. I'm just thinking instead of wasting your ideas here forgotten during the usual fights to follow. I've already built an offline gunnery training terrain for AH3 so believe me the terrain editor is easy to use. If someone will post the sector counts for the three sizes of terrains, I will create a 512x512 base sheet with grids and imbed it in here. Then all it will take for you is some time in a basic art program.

[Brooke]

I'm making a bit of a joke here, but serious in this way.  A good portion of the life of Air Warrior had many fewer players than Aces High, yet it was fun to play and very active, even down to only 4-6 players online.  Why?  Because players/area was still fine.  When there were 4-6 players up, you flew and encountered them.  They weren't flying off somewhere impossible to interact with.

Sectors in Air Warrior, by the way, were 12 miles x 12 miles.  So the above map would fit in about 1.5 by 1.5 sectors in Aces High.

Action is all about players/area.

If you have 40 players, but a terrain where there is a person here, then 4 sectors away another person, and so on -- there will be no action.  It will be no more exciting that flying offline.

If you have 40 players, but a terrain that is 3 sectors by 3 sectors, you will have action and plenty of it.

It just depends.  Does your on-line multiplayer flight-combat company make more money in the long term catering to people who want an offline flying experience while flying online or catering to people who want many-on-many fighting while flying online?

I'm here for many-on-many fighting among humans.  Without that, it has no appeal to me.

[DmonSlyr]

(Image removed from quote.)

I'm making a bit of a joke here, but serious in this way.  A good portion of the life of Air Warrior had many fewer players than Aces High, yet it was fun to play and very active, even down to only 4-6 players online.  Why?  Because players/area was still fine.  When there were 4-6 players up, you flew and encountered them.  They weren't flying off somewhere impossible to interact with.

Sectors in Air Warrior, by the way, were 12 miles x 12 miles.  So the above map would fit in about 1.5 by 1.5 sectors in Aces High.

Action is all about players/area.

If you have 40 players, but a terrain where there is a person here, then 4 sectors away another person, and so on -- there will be no action.  It will be no more exciting that flying offline.

If you have 40 players, but a terrain that is 3 sectors by 3 sectors, you will have action and plenty of it.

It just depends.  Does your on-line multiplayer flight-combat company make more money in the long term catering to people who want an offline flying experience while flying online or catering to people who want many-on-many fighting while flying online?

I'm here for many-on-many fighting among humans.  Without that, it has no appeal to me.

This is pretty much my arguement as well. Not saying the game needs to change. Just maps that are better suited for the community. The lack of maps/same maps every week, makes the game get old for some people. What I'd really like to see is a dedicated team of map makers that can create a lot of maps and that funnel action for everyone to be apart of.

[bustr]

AH terrain sectors are 25x25, so what is the smallest MA map we have in rotation at the moment? What is the smallest number of sectors allowed as an MA terrain? I've played on some excellent AvA small terrains but, the AvA is a more open environment.

Can anyone give me the sector count for MA terrains?

[bustr]

Also from 2000 Hitech explains why we have three countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TT We are going to remain 3 sides in the main arena.
What 3 sides does for arena play.

1. It balances out 1 side having more players than the other.

2. It Spreds the fights out accross the arena. If you only have 2 sides you would see a lot more of everyone fighting in 1 spot.

3. It provides everone with more enemys to fight. If all 3 sides are = numbers you always have 2 enemys to fight for your sides 1.

4. It creates a more dynamic enviorment because who each country is attacking changes . As opposed to 2 sides where you are always attacking the same side.

5. Countryies devlope a personality over time. With 3 countries we end up with a more diverse flavor.

HiTech

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,11939.msg153697/topicseen.html#msg153697